This invention relates generally to the field of oral devices and appliances and more specifically to an apparatus for inhibiting or preventing the clenching action of the jaw. Another way to describe the intention of this apparatus is “to interrupt” the clenching action.
This invention relates to oral devices, appliances and mouthguards used to prevent damage to the soft tissue surrounding the jaw area and the jaw joint itself, and to alleviate or reduce pain in the teeth and jaw muscles created by chronic clenching and/or teeth grinding, primarily while the wearer is sleeping.
Various mouthguard products, both over-the-counter models and doctor-prescribed, are available to sufferers of Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction (commonly referred to as TMJ or TMJD) and chronic teeth clenchers or grinders. In my experience, however, these products do not address the underlying problem—that the individual's teeth are prone to clench a surface, whether or not it be their own teeth. In the case of an inner mouth appliance, the wearer essentially clenches their teeth against another surface other than their own teeth.
Jaw appliances, that attempt to modify an incorrect bite, or exercise the movements of the jaw, all serve a purpose in trying to identify and correct the individual's chronic maladaptive pattern. However, many of these appliances are prohibitively expensive and time consuming as a pain management approach.
Accordingly, there is a need for a more inexpensive and innovative approach to this problem area of pain management—specifically, for the myofascial tissue in the area surrounding the jaw joint. The model presented herewith possesses certain attributes from the background art for easily-operated hand-clamps, while integrating the characteristics suitable for application to the human jaw joint and surrounding soft tissue area, and overcomes the deficiencies in the currently available products as described above.
Prior art in the area of mouth guards, as found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,823,193 of Singer, describes a mouth guard, or inner mouth appliance, made of soft, rubber-like material that is molded by the individual wearer, without the assistance of a dental professional. Other types of mouth guards widely available are made of hard plastic and are professionally molded by dentists and orthodontic professionals by making an impression of the patient's bite. Great Lakes Orthodontics distributes many products and materials of this type to medical professionals. U.S. Pat. No. 6,241,518 of Sullivan describes an inner mouthguard designed to protect wearers of orthodontic braces from teeth grinding. Other inner mouth guards are covered by U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,496,939 of Gores and 5,082,007 of Adell and were designed for athletes, to protect the player's teeth from biting down abruptly during play. However, these and other inner mouth guards, whether prepared by dentists or orthodontics or self-molded by the wearer, fail to address the biting mechanism—specifically, the chronic overuse of the biting mechanism—and continue to allow for a biting surface (even if a “softer surface” as in the example of U.S. Pat. No. 5,823,193) to come into contact with the teeth. As a result, the teeth are still biting down, often times very hard, on some surface and the jaw muscles are not given time to rest which can lead to problems stemming from overuse. Inner mouth guards, as covered by U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,496,939 of Gores and 5,082,007 of Adell, fall into this category, too, although they are effective for their purpose (worn during activities such as sporting events, to protect the teeth, tongue and jaw from serious injury).
Prior art in the area of jaw appliances as found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,394,799 describe an appliance to correctively position the jaw and features a “pre-set intermediate closure position” and a complete closure position. As described in the preferred embodiments section of the referenced patent, there is “a force that opposes (or resists) the closure movement” and includes attachments (for example, bands) to certain teeth as anchors. The opposition or resistance to the closure movement differs, however, from the invention presented in this patent application in that the biting action is limited, as defined in a “pre-set intermediate closure”, but not inhibited or prevented, and the appliance includes intra-oral attachments (for example, bands) to certain teeth as anchors, the management of such would warrant professional dental or oral treatment. The invention described in this application inhibits the biting action, partially by obstructing the pathway of the bite, but also by inhibiting the masseter muscles (of the jaw) from bulking up, which occurs upon contraction. Other jaw appliances, as found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,082 of Binder, which provides therapeutic repositioning for a forward displaced jaw, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,231 of Berman, which assists individuals with limited jaw opening, are designed for insertion inside the mouth and are professionally administered and managed as well by an oral specialists.
Prior art in the area of hand clamps was found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,367,787 of Poole—a hardware item made by American Tool Companies. Unfortunately, the slide bar of this model extends far out to the side of the appliance, making it impractical for a model-type used as head gear while sleeping. A more recent American Tool Companies product is currently Patent Pending as a curved bar clamp (Quik-Grip Handi-Clamp) which places the trigger mechanism under the body of the clamp (similar to the hand-grip of pliers, but made of hard plastic). But, once again, the device was not intended, nor designed, for application or wear upon the human body, and thus has limiting features in this respect. Since the aforementioned clamps were designed for use on hard structures, such as wood and metal, the essential features of these clamps render them unfeasible for application to any human body part, but particularly to the face due to its delicate anatomy. Aside from the basic structural disadvantages (size, shape and dimension) of prior art for the specific use and application that my invention addresses, they lack the essential comfort feature for wear against the skin of the face that my invention adds. In addition, they were not designed to address the same problem or for the same purpose.